Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0025-C Staff AnalysisNovember 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - File No. NAME: Hinson Place - Preliminary LOCATION: North of Pulaski Academy DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Northwest Properties Inc. Edward G. Smith & Assoc. 262 South Shackleford 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72201 224-3055 374-1666 Area: 9.83 acres No. of Lots: 40 Ft. New St.: 1,160 feet ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSFT) TTSF.S PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT: VARIANCE REQUESTED: 1,150 cul-de-sac street. A. Site Histor An application for rezoning to office on this property was recently denied by the Commission. B. Existing Conditions This site is located north of Pulaski Academy and between two residential subdivisions. There are existing single family homes on the property. C. Development Proposal This is a request to divide 9.83 acres into 40 lots for single family development. New streets consist of 1,160 feet. D. Engineering Comments 1e Boundary street improvement and right-of-way dedication, curb/gutter, drainage pipe and widening. November 12,,1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued 2. Show drainage easements and facilities. 3. Show detention calculations and areas. 4. No private drives in the buffer. E. Analysis First of all, the applicant needs to change the name of the Subdivision, since there is already a Hinson Place Subdivision. Staff is concerned about the design. The plan is incompatible with the area due to the fact that the lots are smaller than existing platted lots in the area, some of which abuts this Subdivision. The 12-foot private drive around the project goes for too great a distance around the project to be a one-way. It is suggested that a connector be inserted between Lots 10 and 11 and 30 and 31, neighboring property owners be notified and the existing condos, adjacent acreage and structures need to be shown on the plat. F. Staff Recommendation Deferral of recommendation until points addressed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant agreed to revise the plan as requested by staff and notify all property owners abutting the site. After being informed of Wastewater Utility's comments, the applicant requested approval of the project, subject to the lifting of the sewer moratorium on December 18. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff reported that it was against the project based on incompatibility with the area. The applicant was represented by his engineer, Mr. Joe White. Mr. White stated, realizing that the Commission does not base decisions on pecuniary matters, that the hard cost of the lots would be $20,000, and would make the sales price of each in the $32,000 to $35,000 category. The developer planned to build traditional single family detached homes of 2,000 square feet and lot sizes of about 8,400 square feet. He asked the Commission to judge compatibility on the fact that the Pleasant Valley Bill of Assurance which required a minimum of 1,600 square feet per house and his project had November 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued 2,000 square feet. The proposed lots had a minimum of 8,400 square feet in Pleasant Valley has a minimum required of 65-foot lot widths. Mr. White felt that being harmonious or compatible does not mean that all things have to be the same. His dictionary described harmony as a combination of parts into a proportionate or orderly whole, which is what he felt he had proposed. Staff reported that Pleasant Valley to the east had an average lot size of 21,124 square feet, Pleasant Valley estates to the west had 16,487 square feet and Marlowe Manor to the southwest had 11,600 square feet. There was discussion on the definition of compatibility and whether or not it could be defined in terms of lot measurements. Mr. Gary Greeson, Planning Director, felt that just lot sizes were not a determining factor, but whether or not the project adversely effected the area. There was discussion about filing the project as a PUD to allow for more -flexibility. Mr. White felt that the shape of the land did not lend itself to flexibility. Also, that a precedent had been set in the area for the type of development proposed. The existing project mentioned was on Napa Valley Road across from Countrywood and it is built on 60' x 175' lots, and the homes are 1,980 square feet and sell for $148,000. The proposed lots are 60' x 1501. There were several persons from the neighborhood in attendance. Mr. Jerry Griffiths of 25 Cascade Drive presented a petition with 27 signatures opposing the proposal. Mr. Ron Fuller of Master Circle pointed out that this proposal proved that the owner planned to carry out her "economic threat" made at a previous meeting. 1 One commissioner pointed out that the price of lot versus the size of the lot should be used to determine compatibility. Another felt that the ring drive around the project was not harmonious with the surrounding area. Commissioner Massie felt that a PUD was preferable, since it would provide certain assurances in a situation where there is an existing subdivision which may be adversely effected by cars and lights encroaching on the privacy of their backyards. He felt that a PUD would tie down the size of the units, placement on the lots and the screening. Also, this was not a typical subdivision plat, due to the size`and shape of the property, the excessive cul-de-sac needed for access and the ring road. November 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued shape of the property, the excessive cul-de-sac needed for access and the ring road, Finally, a motion for denial was made and passed by a vote of: 1 aye, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention. The reasons for denial were stated as: (1) non -harmony of the proposal with the surrounding area based on ordinance provisions; (2) location of driveway around the project; and (3) refusal of the Commission to give overriding consideration to the economics of the proposal.